from the this-is-bad dept

I'm going to assume that you weren't living in an internet-proof cave this weekend, and caught at least some of the stories about Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. The news first kicked off with the announcement of a data protection lawsuit filed against Cambridge Analytica in the UK on Friday evening (we'll likely have more on that lawsuit soon), followed quickly by an attempt by Facebook to get out ahead of the coming tidal wave by announcing that it was suspending Cambridge Analytica and some associated parties from its platforms, claiming terms of service violations. This was quickly followed on Saturday with two explosive stories. The first, from Carole Cadwalladr at The Guardian, revealing a "whistleblower" from the very early days of Cambridge Analytica (who more or less set up how it works with data profiles) named Christopher Wylie. This was quickly followed up by another story at the NY Times, which was a bit more newsy, providing more details on how Cambridge Analytica got data on about 50 million people out of Facebook.

Admittedly -- much of this isn't actually new. The Intercept had reported something similar a year ago, though it only said it was 30 million Facebook users, rather than 50 million. And that story built on the work of a 2015 (yes, 2015) story in the Guardian discussing how Cambridge Analytica was using data from "tens of millions" of Facebook users "harvested without permission" in support of Ted Cruz's presidential campaign.

There's a lot of heat on this story right now, and a lot of accusations being thrown around -- and I'll admit that I'm not entirely sure where I come down on the details yet. I assume people on basically both sides of this issue will scream at me and call me names over this, but there's too much going on to fully understand what happened here. I will note that, in that Guardian story in 2015, Cruz told the publication that this data collecting and targeting effort was "very much the Obama model." And political consultant Patrick Ruffini has a well worth reading Twitter thread arguing that people are overreacting to much of this, and that the 2012 Obama campaign did the exact same thing... and was celebrated for its creative use of data and targeting on the internet. Ad tech guy Jay Pinho makes the same point as well. Here's a Time article from 2012 excitedly talking up how the Obama campaign used Facebook in the same way:

That’s because the more than 1 million Obama backers who signed up for the app gave the campaign permission to look at their Facebook friend lists. In an instant, the campaign had a way to see the hidden young voters. Roughly 85% of those without a listed phone number could be found in the uploaded friend lists.

Of course, there is one major difference between the Obama one and the Cambridge Analytica one -- which involves the level of transparency. With the Obama campaign, people knew they were giving their data (and friend data) to the cause of re-electing Obama. Cambridge Analytica got its data by having a Cambridge academic (who the new Guardian story revealed for the first time is also appointed to a position at St. Petersburg University) set up an app that was used to collect much of this data, and misled Facebook by telling them it was purely for academic purposes, when the reality is that it was setup and directly paid for by Cambridge Analytica with the intent of sucking up that data for Cambridge Analytica's database. Is that enough to damn the whole thing? Perhaps.

As for the claims that this is just the same old Facebook model of selling everyone's data... that was not true and still is not accurate. Facebook doesn't sell your data. It sells access to its users via the data it has on you. That may not seem different, but it is different. But the lines do seem to get a bit blurry, as it appears that Cambridge Analytica, via its partnership with the professor Dr. Aleksander Kogan (who apparently briefly changed his name to -- I kid you not -- Dr. Spectre) and his "Global Science Research," basically paid people via Amazon's Mechanical Turk to do a "personality assessment" on Facebook that, as part of the process, exposed information about their entire social graph, which GSR apparently hoovered up and passed along to Cambridge Analytica.

At the very least, it can be said that Facebook should have recognized much earlier that this could and would be done and to understand the potential privacy problems related to it. Facebook has a fairly long and painful history of not quite realizing how what it does impacts people's privacy, and this is one more example.

But, it's raising a bigger question, as well, and it's one that caused Facebook to do something that I'll definitively call as "incredibly stupid" -- which is that it threatened to sue the Guardian over its story, mainly because the Guardian story refers to this whole mess as a "data breach" for Facebook's data.

Facebook instructed external lawyers and warned us we were making 'false and defamatory' allegations. Today they said it was not correct to call this a data breach. We are calling it a data breach. https://t.co/Q8wrw0FDyr

And, of course, Facebook wasn't the only one who threatened to sue. Cambridge Analytica did too:

The Observer also received the first of three letters from Cambridge Analytica threatening to sue Guardian News and Media for defamation.

There are issues of terminology here. Facebook, in its post, is adamant that what happened is not a "breach"

The claim that this is a data breach is completely false. Aleksandr Kogan requested and gained access to information from users who chose to sign up to his app, and everyone involved gave their consent. People knowingly provided their information, no systems were infiltrated, and no passwords or sensitive pieces of information were stolen or hacked.

There are legal reasons why Facebook is so concerned about whether or not this is a "breach" and, let's face it, the company is about to face a million and a half lawsuits over this, not to mention government investigations (already Senator Amy Klobuchar has demanded Mark Zuckerberg's head on a plattertestimony before the Senate and Massachusetts' Attorney General Maura Healey has announced the opening of an investigation -- and there have also been rumblings out of the UK and the EU, as well as the FTC). But, there are also some fairly important legal obligations if this was a "breach" in the traditional sense, such as disclosing that to those impacted by the breach.

I'm not entirely sure where I come down on the breach question. It doesn't feel like a traditional breach. It wasn't that Facebook coughed up this info -- it was its users coughed up the info... and Facebook just made it easy for this outside "academic" to hoover up all that info by paying a bunch of people to take dopey personality quizzes. However, as the Guardian's Alex Hern points out, how do you distinguish what Kogan/GSR/Cambridge Analytica did from social engineering to get information.

If you're having trouble thinking of today's story as a "breach", try rephrasing it in your head as "Facebook fell prey to a social engineering attack in which it was convinced to hand over user data by an attacker who told it what it wanted to hear".

Of course, there is something of a difference: it still wasn't Facebook per se coughing up the info. It was Facebook's own users. And, you might even argue that if you believe that Facebook doesn't "own" all this data in the first place, that it was actually those Facebook users coughing up a bunch of their own data -- including lots of data about their friends. Needless to say, this is a mess where a lot more transparency might help -- and that transparency is going to be forced upon Facebook with a sledgehammer in the near near future.

But, regardless of where you come down on all of this, Facebook threatening defamation against the Guardian for calling this a data breach is ludicrous and Facebook should be ashamed and apologize. Even as it clearly disagrees with how the Guardian characterized much of the story, that's no excuse to whip out defamation threats. Not only is incredibly stupid from a Facebook PR perspective (and makes the company look like a giant bully), it suggests that the company still has absolutely no fucking clue how to communicate with the press and the public about how its own platform works.

It's actually quite incredible to recognize just how big Facebook has gotten in the face of how little it seems to understand about what its own platform does.

from the will-it-be-fixed? dept

It appears that sometime this week (or even possibly today), the Senate is unfortunately likely to vote (perhaps by an overwhelming margin) for SESTA, despite the fact that it's a terribly drafted bill which no one can explain how it will actually stop sex trafficking. Indeed, it's a bill that many victims advocates are warning will not just make problems worse, but will put lives in danger. And that's leaving aside all of the damage it will do to free speech and tons of websites on the internet.

Much of this could have been avoided if anyone in Congress were actually interested in understanding how the internet worked, and how to write a bill that actually addressed problems around sex trafficking -- rather than buying into a false narrative (pushed mainly by Hollywood) that the liability protections of CDA 230 were magically responsible for sex traffickers using the internet. Two academics who are probably the most knowledgeable experts on intermediary liability, Daphne Keller at Stanford and Eric Goldman at Santa Clara University, have each posted thoughts on how to "salvage" SESTA. If Congress were serious, it would listen to them. But that's a big "if."

Thread: Half a dozen ways #SESTA-#FOSTA could have been drafted to do less damage to small platforms and lawful speech. Many require zero trade-offs w the law's goal of protecting trafficking victims. (Though notably, many victims' orgs say the law will make things worse.) https://t.co/tjZG72giPV

First up, she takes on the problematic "knowledge" standard used in SESTA/FOSTA. Again, a key part of the bill is that internet sites can become liable if they have "knowledge" of sex trafficking activity that is done on the platform. But what the hell is meant by "knowledge"? In other parts of the law, even when it's more spelled out, there are examples of legal cases lasting years while everyone wrangles over what "knowledge" means. In the copyright context, Viacom sued YouTube and were in court for more than half a decade, with much of that being over the simple question of whether knowledge meant "specific" knowledge or "general" knowledge. SESTA could solve many of its problems if it made its knowledge standard clear -- and, as Keller notes, one that wouldn't require "teams of lawyers."

Indeed, this is perhaps the largest problem with SESTA (and may also doom the bill in court). Prosecutors and the DOJ have already raised concerns about the standards in the bill, and even the politicians supporting it toss out very, very different definitions. Senator Rob Portman has claimed it requires "intent." Meanwhile, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers claims that the standard is "knowingly turning a blind eye." That's... extremely different. Senator Cory Booker claims is "a high standard" that requires "proving beyond a reasonable doubt." All of those mean very different things, and when you have the politicians backing the bill all spouting nonsense, and the law itself doesn't clarify, you're making a huge mess.

Keller's second suggestion is to add in real and meaningful penalties for bad faith accusers as well as an appeals process for the accused. This is also a big deal. Again, looking at the DMCA, we've talked about how the one part of that law dealing with bad faith accusations is basically toothless and almost never useful. And thus, the DMCA is abused all the time. We have all those lessons to learn from -- and it appears that Congress is ignoring them.

Up next would be a clear statement that the law does not require monitoring all speech. Such a mandatory monitoring system would have tremendous First Amendment issues -- but unfortunately it seems likely that some may read the bill to require mandatory filtering (oddly, others will read it as saying you shouldn't use filters at all to avoid knowledge -- and that dichotomy of results should just emphasize how poorly the bill was drafted).

Fourth, Keller suggests making it clear that merely monitoring should not be deemed as knowledge (this could be seen as related to clarifying the knowledge standard as well). On that front, there may be an amendment on the table that could help (see below...).

Fifth: the bills should make it clear that it applies to service providers that are end user facing, rather than further up the stack. Again, here's a lesson that we've learned from takedowns in the copyright space. As Hollywood got more and more upset about various things online it continued to move up the stack beyond services to hosting companies, data centers, registrars and even ICANN itself. We shouldn't allow SESTA to allow for the same nonsense.

Finally, Keller suggests that if we must go through with such a bad bill, there should be some requirements on transparency about the impacts for both tech platforms and government agencies, so that we can look back on the bill and determine what it did -- both good and bad.

Will Congress take any of these steps? It doesn't look like it.

As for Goldman, his post focuses on an amendment that Senator Wyden is offering. Last I heard, it appears that the Senate may actually consider this amendment. And it's an amendment similar to one that Goldman himself suggested -- with a very modest addition to SESTA clarifying the whole question of does "monitoring" equal "knowledge." Specifically the amendment would add the following language:

The fact that a provider or user of an interactive computer service has undertaken any efforts (including monitoring and filtering) to identify, restrict access to, or remove material the provider or user considers objectionable shall not be considered in determining the criminal or civil liability of the provider or user for any material that the provider or user has not removed or restricted access to.

As Goldman notes, this one amendment would fix the worst problems of SESTA (while still leaving in place plenty of others). If you at least support making SESTA less horrible, he suggests calling your Senators and letting them know:

If you think this is a meritorious fix to a bad bill, then *immediately* call your Senators (you have 2, remember!) and tell them:

1) You oppose SESTA/FOSTA because it’s not clear the law actually helps sex trafficking victims; and

2) You want your Senator to support Sen. Wyden’s proposed content moderation amendment because it ensures online services will keep being the first line of defense in the fight against sex trafficking.

Note 1: This issue could be moot as early as Monday afternoon, so literally CALL NOW.

It seems quite likely the bill is going to pass very soon and then get signed into law. The fact that there are simple and reasonable ways to improve on the bill, which Congress is blatantly ignoring, is problematic.

from the the-word-on-the-blog dept

This week, following our coverage of the disturbing actions of a cop that led to a high-speed crash killing an infant, one commenter for some reason felt it was time to turn the blame around on the mother, suggesting the death must have been caused by her negligence. A reply from Alexander won first place for insightful:

As an Automotive Engineer who has engineered seats in cars I can tell you for certain that none of them in ordinary vehicles are designed to deal with a 94mph collision. Cars disintegrate at that speed.

Those videos you see for car safety, the super slow motion ones, they occur at ~20mph. Yes, that is how much the seats move at 20mph. At 94mph they disintegrate.

Fastening the straps correctly or not would likely not have changed the outcome at those speeds. The officer is clearly grossly negligent and the mother did not contribute in any significant way to the death of her infant. I say that with confidence of someone who's signature is still on the approvals for seats still carrying children in cars today.

That cop should have his drivers license cancelled for reckless driving for a decade. If he loses his job, then stiff shit. Then talk about trying him for negligent homicide.

In second place on the insightful side, we've got Dingledore the Previously Impervious using Microsoft's anger about a computer recycler offering Windows recovery disks to highlight the hypocrisy of "copying is theft":

Microsoft - Eats cake, yet still has cake.

Microsoft have spent years explaining that they sell licences, not DVDs of software.

Now, they're apparently selling the DVDs again. If it's a lost sale, where can we buy them?

This is actually self-consistent. The government believes that secure encryption with a Law Enforcement Agency Key ("LEAK") is possible if the technology companies would just "nerd harder," even as the government offers neither reference implementation nor convincing proof that this can be done. Likewise, the government now seemingly believes that the companies could identify, in real time, trolls that the government's own intelligence/surveillance agencies failed to spot. In both cases, the government:

Expects the private sector to solve the problem, and is actively demonizing anyone who fails to drop everything to work on the problem

Provides no useful assistance in solving the problem

Provides no reasonable explanation for why, with its vast resources and supposed subject matter expertise, the government cannot offer useful assistance solving the problem

Truly, the greatest sign that TD is not filled to the rafters with pure evil is that they have chosen to only apply the code that forces people to read articles they didn't want to on one site, rather than weaponizing it and taking over the world.

from the corporate-sovereignty-is-the-problem,-as-usual dept

We recently wrote about an important judgment from the EU's top court, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The ruling said that that corporate sovereignty provisions included in trade deals between the EU's member states were illegal. Significantly, the logic behind that decision suggests that any form of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) -- the official name for the corporate sovereignty framework -- even in trade deals involving countries outside the EU, would be forbidden too. Christina Eckes, professor of European law at the University of Amsterdam and director of the Amsterdam Centre for European Law and Governance, believes that the implications of the CJEU ruling are even broader.

Eckes says that in the wake of the judgment, serious doubts hang over the investment chapter in the Canada-EU trade deal, CETA, which has still not been ratified by all EU member states yet -- a process that is necessary before it comes into force definitively. In fact, Belgium has explicitly asked the CJEU to rule on the legality of the Investor Court System (ICS) in CETA, which is the modified version of corporate sovereignty that supposedly addresses its flaws. As a result, a ruling on whether CETA's investment chapter is legal is definitely on its way, and could have major implications for CETA and its ratification. However, Ecke points out that there is something called "EU loyalty", which:

What this means in practice, Eckes suggests, is that the EU's member states should not go ahead and ratify CETA without knowing the outcome of the CJEU deliberation on the legality of the ICS. If they were to complete ratification, and the investment chapter were then found inadmissible by the court, this would undermine the authority of the CJEU, since its ruling would be null and void. As a consequence, she says:

In the light of the foreseeable risk that CJEU declares the CETA investment chapter to be capable of undermining the autonomy of the EU legal order, Member States are required by the principle of EU loyalty to halt ratification in order to demonstrate a uniform position as one Party, together with the EU and the other Member States, on the international plane in general and vis-à-vis Canada in particular.

It's an interesting argument, which the European Commission will doubtless do its best to ignore in the hope that it can just steamroller CETA through the ratification process before the CJEU issues its ruling. However, if, as seems likely, CETA's investment chapter is indeed ruled illegal by the top court, this will present a rather thorny problem for the EU. Given the other challenges it faces thanks to rising populism in many EU countries, the Commission could probably do without this kind of constitutional crisis that would undermine further people's support for the European project. That might be a good reason for putting those ratifications on hold for a while.

from the having-had-it-stuck-to-him,-The-Man-retreats-uneasily dept

Buzzfeed has obtained files the NYPD never wanted the public to see. This isn't the result of a protracted public records battle, but rather the work of an anonymous whistleblower. Presumably, those further up the chain of command are already familiar with the department's disinterest in holding officers accountable, so there's no whistleblowing outlet there. Also, presumably, the Civilian Complaint Review Board's hands are tied and it cannot hand out disciplinary reports for officers never formally disciplined. So, leak it is. And what a leak it is.

Secret files obtained by BuzzFeed News reveal that from 2011 to 2015 at least 319 New York Police Department employees who committed offenses serious enough to merit firing were allowed to keep their jobs.

Many of the officers lied, cheated, stole, or assaulted New York City residents. At least fifty employees lied on official reports, under oath, or during an internal affairs investigation. Thirty-eight were found guilty by a police tribunal of excessive force, getting into a fight, or firing their gun unnecessarily. Fifty-seven were guilty of driving under the influence. Seventy-one were guilty of ticket-fixing. One officer, Jarrett Dill, threatened to kill someone. Another, Roberson Tunis, sexually harassed and inappropriately touched a fellow officer. Some were guilty of lesser offenses, like mouthing off to a supervisor.

At least two dozen of these employees worked in schools. Andrew Bailey was found guilty of touching a female student on the thigh and kissing her on the cheek while she was sitting in his car. In a school parking lot, while he was supposed to be on duty, Lester Robinson kissed a woman, removed his shirt, and began to remove his pants. And Juan Garcia, while off duty, illegally sold prescription medication to an undercover officer.

In every instance, the police commissioner, who has final authority in disciplinary decisions, assigned these officers to “dismissal probation,” a penalty with few practical consequences. The officer continues to do their job at their usual salary. They may get less overtime and won’t be promoted during that period, which usually lasts a year. When the year is over, so is the probation.

There's an NYPD Snowden out there somewhere, exposing the dirty non-secret that is the continued lack of accountability within the largest police force in the nation. New York's Finest, the NYPD calls itself, ignoring the fact that it does almost nothing to ensure it's only staffed with the finest human beings.

Sure, 319 out of 40,000 officers is only a small percentage, but there's nothing in Buzzfeed's blockbuster article that indicates what it's seen is all that's available. What it has seen is only a small part of a larger whole. These are the probation files, which don't include officers dismissed. Add that to the mix and the total rises to over 1,400 officers caught breaking laws and policies -- many of which were allowed to resign while charges were still pending, keeping their records clean and their pension plans intact.

This exposé of kid glove treatment for repeat offenders contains this PR-friendly statement from the deputy commissioner of the office charged with handling internal disciplinary issues. Kevin Richardson, speaking on behalf of the job he's failing to do, made assertions clearly contradicted by the documents in Buzzfeed's possession.

“The department is not interested in terminating officers that don't need to be terminated. We're interested in keeping employees and making our employees obey the rules and do the right thing,” he told BuzzFeed News. “But where there are failings that we realize this person should be separated from the department, this police commissioner and the prior police commissioner have shown a willingness to do that.”

From what's being reported here, "separating" someone from the department is a last resort. And when it is done, it's often done in a way that allows bad officers to move on to other police departments or sit at home collecting a pension for a job well poorly done. Richardson is in denial, but at least he's a bit more reasonable than the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association.

Al O’Leary, a spokesperson for the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, the largest police union representing NYPD officers, had a different message: “We’re not going to talk to you about anything negative as far as any of our officers.”

Well, if you won't, others will. Burying your head in the filthy sand doesn't make the problem go away. And it certainly doesn't put an entity willing to stand up for any officer, no matter how egregious their misconduct, in a better light.

Case in point: Officer Raymond Marrero. Marrero is still employed by the NYPD despite being named in four serious complaints in his first six years and racking up $900,000 of lawsuit settlements. This colorful story is just one of Marrero's many abusive escapades.

[I]n early 2009, a former police department volunteer named Louis Deluca confronted a man who, Deluca found out, had groped his brother’s 17-year-old girlfriend. The man took off with his friends, just as Marrero was pulling up. “I was telling him, 'There's some guys that groped a family member of mine,’” Deluca said. “‘They're right around the corner.’”

Marrero and his partner told Deluca to shut up, Deluca said. Incredulous, Deluca called Marrero a cunt. The officers pushed him to the ground and arrested him, according to a lawsuit Deluca later filed.

Back at the precinct, as Deluca was being taken out of the car, Marrero struck him with his police baton, opening up a gash on the top of his head. Another officer said there was so much blood, they had to clean it up with a mop. It took 12 staples at the hospital to close the wound.

In a deposition, Deluca said Marrero told him “You can’t disrespect us in the street like that.” Deluca received a $398,000 settlement, of which Marrero was ordered to pay $4,000.

Marrero pled guilty to several internal charges during this six-year period, including deploying excessive force and lying to department investigators. Despite this, Commissioner Ray Kelly felt Marrero still added value to the force. He was placed on probation and lost 45 vacation days, but was never terminated or asked to resign. An outside commission on police corruption reviewed these files and suggested Marrero be fired, as he "lacked the temperament necessary to be a police officer." This suggestion was ignored.

There's nothing about local laws or NYPD policies that encourage any sort of positive change. The NYPD says local laws allow it to withhold disciplinary records from the public. Disciplinary trials for officers are open to the public… so to speak. They're held without prior announcement of schedules or locations. They're presided over by a police official appointed by the NYPD Commissioner, rather than a neutral adjudicator. And if a top cop decides an accused cop should be terminated, the Commissioner can overturn the ruling. (And even if the Commissioner allowed the discipline to stay in place, there's a good chance the PBA would get the ruling overturned.)

A closed disciplinary does no favors for the public. Unsurprisingly, it does no favors for police officers, either. Bad cops become worse cops as no one's willing to engage in serious deterrence and the system itself is often used to retaliate against good cops who blow the whistle on bad behavior or sue the department for discriminatory practices. Ultimately, no one's accountable to anyone, despite everyone involved being a public servant.

This leak will likely provoke some changes within the department, but with zero oversight, the positive changes likely won't last. My money's on an internal investigation into the leak being the largest expenditure of time and effort as a result of this exposé.

from the pirates-are-our-friends dept

In all of our conversations about video game piracy and the DRM that studios and publishers use to try to stave it off, the common refrain from those within in the industry and others is that these cracking groups are nearly nihilism personified. Nothing is sacred to these people, goes the mantra, and they care nothing for the gaming industry at all. If the gaming industry is destroyed, it will be because of these pirate-y pirates simply not giving a damn.

This notion is belied by the story of Crackshell, makers of indie spinoff of the Serious Sam franchise called Serious Sam's Bogus Detour, and Voksi, an individual that runs a game-cracking ring. Voksi has been featured in our pages before as one of the few people out there who has been able to consistently defeat the Denuvo DRM, helping propel the software's precipitous fall from grace. If a game developer and a game-cracker seem to be natural enemies, it will come as a surprise to you that they have recently teamed up to try to resurrect Bogus Detour from the bin of failure.

The whole story is useful for debunking the notion that these pirate sites and those that run them are pure venom for the game industry, but it's particularly useful to hear how this relationship came to be.

In discussion with TF over the weekend, Voksi told us that he’s a huge fan of the Serious Sam franchise so when he found out about the latest title – Serious Sam’s Bogus Detour (SSBD) – he wanted to play it – badly. That led to a remarkable series of events.

“One month before the game’s official release I got into the closed beta, thanks to a friend of mine, who invited me in. I introduced myself to the developers [Crackshell]. I told them what I do for a living, but also assured them that I didn’t have any malicious intents towards the game. They were very cool about it, even surprisingly cool,” Voksi informs TF.

When the game hit the market, Voksi didn't target it. Despite this hands-off approach from a capable game-cracker, sales for the title were very poor. Reviews on Steam were great, critics generally liked it, and yet as of the end of 2017 the game wasn't even profitable. Bucking the stereotype, Voksi reached out to Crackshell and offered to help.

“Last week I contacted the main dev of SSBD over Steam and proposed what I can do to help boost the game. He immediately agreed,” Voksi says.

“The plan was to release a build of the game that was playable from start to finish, playable in co-op with up to 4 players, not to miss anything important gameplay wise and add a little message in the bottom corner, which is visible at all times, telling you: “We are small indie studio. If you liked the game, please consider buying it. Thank you and enjoy the game!”

Voksi, who is doing all of this for free, then went on to tie in giveaways for the pirate version of the game on his own forum for his cracking group. This work, done pro bono, is all the result of Voksi liking the game, liking the developer, and desperately wanting both to succeed. If ever there were a rebuttal to the notion of pirate groups as nihilistic and selfish, this is certainly it.

This whole experiment will also serve as a wonderful test of how useful engaging the supposed enemies of gaming by studios would be. Keep in mind that this game was already a failure in terms of being profitable, despite being a good game by all accounts. If engaging with pirate groups and sites can suddenly make it profitable? Well, that would seem to turn even more claims about piracy on their head.

from the in-which-the-ATF-is-informed-its-baby-is-neither-cute-nor-likable dept

A chief federal judge in Chicago has handed down a scathing opinion calling ATF stash house stings an "ends justifies the means" evil that needs to be "relegated to the dark corridors of our past." The opinion shuts the door on two defendants hoping to show the ATF's fake robberies of fake stash houses filled with fake drugs were racially-biased, but it does show even without the taint of bias, the sting operations are exploitative and useless. (via Brad Heath)

The opinion [PDF] has nothing good to say about the stash house stings. It opens with numbers that certainly appear to show racial bias and it doesn't let up from there.

It is undisputed that between 2006 and 2013, the defendants charged in this District in the ATF false stash house cases were 78.7 black, 9.6 percent Hispanic, and 11.7 percent white. During this same period, the District's adult population was approximately 18 percent black, 11 percent Hispanic, and 63 percent White. These numbers generate great disrespect for law enforcement efforts. Disrespect for the law cannot be tolerated during these difficult times. It is time for false stash house cases to end and be relegated to the dark corridors of our past. To put it simply, our criminal justice system should not tolerate false stash house cases in 2018.

[...]

Our society simply cannot accept a "win at all costs" mentality in the delicate world of law enforcement, which is ultimately dependent on proactive citizen involvement.

The judge then goes on to speak about the valuable work of taking firearms off the streets, but says that this job cannot, and should not, be performed through bogus sting operations -- even in an era where gun violence is seemingly more prevalent. Even when violence against citizens and (especially) law enforcement was at its peak nearly 100 years ago, the ATF never stooped to using complete bullshit to secure a steady stream of criminal defendants.

[E]ven during the low points of the great violence caused by the alcohol wars of Prohibition, the ATP did not seek to use "false alcohol warehouse" tactics against any ethnic organized crime groups to promote public safety. Instead, the ATP used solid investigative work to garner the great public respect of the Elliot Ness era that still lives today as the gold standard of law enforcement. This type of work inspires great public cooperation with law enforcement, unlike the false drug stash house cases before the Court.

Judge Ruben Castillo notes that many ATF sting cases -- like the two before him -- operate under the theory that roping in otherwise uninvolved citizens will somehow result in the seizure of illegal weapons. Some cases, obviously, do result in weapons being taken off the streets. Far more often, the only thing taken off the streets are people with little in the way of criminal records or cash, talked into taking down a fake stash house for a cut of a completely fabricated drugs and money. The fake amounts of drugs in the fake stash house are used to determine sentence lengths, with the ATF asserting -- without exception -- that the quantity of make-believe drugs discussed with sting victims is enough to trigger 20-year minimum sentences.

The judge points out that the government is lucky he's only considering the issues raised by the defendants: alleged Fifth Amendment violations predicated on the apparent bias in the ATF's stash house sting operations. Much of the 73-page opinion discussed expert opinions based on studies of the underlying facts of a decade's-worth of stash house stings. Some evidence of discriminatory selection exists, but it's undercut by most DEA stings being predicated on tips from confidential informants. In other words, maybe CI's are bigoted, but the operations themselves are not, despite a large percentage of defendants being minorities.

The trials of these two defendants will continue. But the concerns expressed by the judge suggest the ATF is no longer welcome to bring stash house sting prosecutions into Judge Castillo's court. This is only one judge of hundreds in the federal system, but it's another federal judiciary voice to add to those who've already expressed concern, if not actual dismay, at the ATF's sting operations.

from the golden-goose-preservation dept

It's become quite fashionable these days to gripe about the Internet. Even some of its staunchest allies in Congress have been getting cranky. Naturally there are going to be growing pains as humanity adapts to the unprecedented ability for billions of people to communicate with each other easily, cheaply, and immediately for the first time in world history. But this communications revolution has also brought some extraordinary benefits that we glibly risk when we forget about them and instead only focus the challenges. This glass is way more than half full but, if we're not careful to protect it, soon it will be empty.

As the saying too often goes, you don't know what you've got till it's gone. But this time let's not wait to lose it; let's take the opportunity to appreciate all the good the Internet has given us, so we can hold on tight to it and resist efforts to take it away.

Towards that end, we want to encourage the sharing and collection of examples of how the Internet has made the world better: how it made it better for everyone, and how it even just made it better for you, and whether it made things better for good, or for even just one moment in one day when the Internet enabled some connection, discovery, or opportunity that could not have happened without it. It is unlikely that this list could be exhaustive: the Internet delivers its benefits too frequently and often too seamlessly to easily recognize them all. But that's why it's all the more important to go through the exercise of reflecting on as many as we can, because once they become less frequent and less seamless they will be much easier to miss and much harder to get back.

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

Lean Six Sigma is a business management methodology that combines Lean and Six Sigma, two methodologies intended to improve performance by systematically removing waste. With the Official Lean Six Sigma Training and Certification Bundle, you'll learn how to tackle the 8 kinds of waste in projects: Time, Inventory, Motion, Waiting, Over-production, Over-processing, Defects, and Skills. Work your way through Yellow Belt, Green Belt, and Black Belt to hone your skills using Six Sigma methodologies, Lean concepts, and DMAIC methodologies. Each course includes a certification exam at the end. The bundle is on sale for $49.99.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.